Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen

[MaryJane]

Maryjane....real question, how high were you when you saw that movie? Cuz I said the same thing about Shrek 2. It's a good movie, a great movie even, but I was a bit over enthusiastic with my review of it.

Lol I actually ran out of stuff during the beginning of the movie.

[EasyCure]

Speaking of being high at movies..

Some people lit up at 50/50 and had some GREAT laughs in that one scene with Joseph Gordon Levitt but were practically crying the rest of the movie. Made me LOL

[broodwars]

Saw Tim Burton's Corpse Bride for the first time today, one of many movies in my first-time backlog.  Eh, it was ok.  At least I liked it a lot more than the Nightmare Before Christmas (a movie I've never gotten into for some reason).  It's the closest I've seen from Tim Burton of his earlier work, though I'll still take a Beetlejuice; Batman; or Sleepy Hollow any day.

I'm not sure why Burton decided to make it a musical, as there's only a handful of (not spectacularly good) songs and the strongest parts of the movie are outside the songs anyway.  And while the art style he chose is interesting (crudely-animating CG models to make them move like puppets), I'm not sure it was the right one.  The strength of puppets is that they actually exist in the physical world, and the strength of CG is the ease of broad movements and ultimate camera control.  Animating this movie as it is doesn't feel like the best use of either medium, but it's still a good looking movie.

Ultimately, my biggest problem with this movie is that the story and characters aren't particularly memorable.  The movie as a whole probably could have used another 20-30 minutes to flesh it out (pun not intended).

[ThePerm]

Last of the Living 7.9/10, pretty good use of 40 cents. This was low budget, not super low budget, but then again even a low budget goes far in New Zealand. Funny mostly, still ends nihilistically like most Zombie movies. Had some cheesey moments, but i liked it. I would give it a higher score, but eh. I'd say its worth watching. I got it for 5 bucks in the bargain bin at Wal-mart as part of a horror 8 pack. I should MFT the other ones, they all sound bad. Then again sometimes you think a movie is bad and then it turns out to be a diamond in the rough. Like Drunken Tai Chi

Drunken Tai Chi 8.8/10 Low budget as ****, old, youll most likely see a degraded version, but **** that some kung fu. See Ip mans first movie.

[Adrock]

Buried
Surprisingly good for a movie set entirely in a wooden box........... until the ending happened.

[Halbred]

Fieval Goes West > American Tail

Aladdin 2 > Aladdin

Rescuers Down Under > Rescuers

[Morari]

I can't remember either of the Rescuers very well, but I highly question the validity of placing Return of Jafar over Aladdin.

[broodwars]

I highly question the validity of placing Return of Jafar over Aladdin.

As do I, especially since Return of Jafar was intended to be the first 3 or so episodes of the Aladdin TV series and Robin Williams doesn't voice the Genie.  The movie's...passable and one of the better Disney direct-to-video sequels, but it doesn't hold a candle to either the original or its sequel Aladdin & the King of Thieves.

As for American Tale vs. Fieval Goes West, I remember generally liking the sequel but not finding it particularly memorable.  An American Tale may be one of the most depressing movies I've ever seen, but it's also one of my all-time favorites (a pity that, with the exception of Anastasia, John Bluth films always look like crap on home video because no one gives enough of a damn to restore them).

As for Rescuers Down Under vs. the original Rescuers, there's no contest: Rescuers Down Under is a far, far, FAR better film in every conceivable way than its predecessor (though the original isn't a bad movie, either).  Along with The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver & Company, it's probably my favorite overlooked Disney animated film.

[Oblivion]

The best direct-to-video Disney sequel is Lion King 2. Without a doubt.

[broodwars]

The best direct-to-video Disney sequel is Lion King 2. Without a doubt.

It's probably between that and Aladdin & the King of Thieves.  Which reminds me...I still have to watch Lion King 1 1/2 and rewatch Lion King 2 in the near future.

[ThePerm]

speaking of overlooked disney movies

Anyone get a Brave Little Toaster vibe from watching Toy Story 3? When watching Toy Story 3 I had almost felt id seen the movie before, then I was like Brave little Toaster, turns out one of the writers is the same.

[MaryJane]

speaking of overlooked disney movies

Anyone get a Brave Little Toaster vibe from watching Toy Story 3? When watching Toy Story 3 I had almost felt id seen the movie before, then I was like Brave little Toaster, turns out one of the writers is the same.

That feeling of familiarity you got from watching Toy Story 3 was most likely from having seen Toy Story 1 and 2.

[Ceric]

I highly question the validity of placing Return of Jafar over Aladdin.

As do I, especially since Return of Jafar was intended to be the first 3 or so episodes of the Aladdin TV series and Robin Williams doesn't voice the Genie.  The movie's...passable and one of the better Disney direct-to-video sequels, but it doesn't hold a candle to either the original or its sequel Aladdin & the King of Thieves.

As for American Tale vs. Fieval Goes West, I remember generally liking the sequel but not finding it particularly memorable.  An American Tale may be one of the most depressing movies I've ever seen, but it's also one of my all-time favorites (a pity that, with the exception of Anastasia, John Bluth films always look like crap on home video because no one gives enough of a damn to restore them).

As for Rescuers Down Under vs. the original Rescuers, there's no contest: Rescuers Down Under is a far, far, FAR better film in every conceivable way than its predecessor (though the original isn't a bad movie, either).  Along with The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver & Company, it's probably my favorite overlooked Disney animated film.

Watch Grave of the Fireflies...  That is depressing.

[broodwars]

Watch Grave of the Fireflies...  That is depressing.

I have, and it is.  Too much so, actually.  I've only been able to watch it once.

[Ceric]

Watch Grave of the Fireflies...  That is depressing.

I have, and it is.  Too much so, actually.  I've only been able to watch it once.

I've seen it twice.  Just happened that way.  Its a movie I recommend people watch exactly once.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Attack the Block - 8.75/10

Unexpectedly a much better movie than I would have thought. I was supposed to go see this back in the spring or summer when it had limited US release, but couldn't make it. Luckily it came to DVD rather quickly and did not disappoint.

Alien falls to earth and attacks a teenage South London local... he hunts the creature down , which this leads to an invasion where the local & his crew retreats back to their building "The Block" to try and protect themselves from the vicious alien creatures hunting them down.

This movie didn't have a $60million budget, but everything was handled well. There was humor, action, violence, gore, aliens, fireworks and more. All the effects were handled very well and the aliens were pretty creepy. I would love to see a sequel or just know what happens next since the movie ends at a point where I just wanted to see more.

[ThePerm]

TheThing'11  Thumbs up from someone who watched the first one EXTENSIVELY


now 2 weeks ago i did a detailed watching of TheThing'82, and I was already a fan. I got to know the movie pretty tightly, and this movie was a joy to watch. Its aimed at specifically The Thing nerds though, so unless you watched the first one like a hawk and dissected the **** out of it much of the information is lost on you.  I mean I was wondering when the axe on the wall was going to show up, and I wanted to know how it got there. As far as quality goes it was missing some elements the first one had, and it had some things going for it that the first one didn't.

From previews I had expected them to play up the language barrier a bit more, but they didn't. Which was too bad. The paranoia factor didn't reach '88 levels. It wasn't like Inglorious Bastards which really did play up languages. Also, from what other reviewers in this thread were saying they said the thing was much more visible more often, but really no the creatures only appeared about as many times as the 88 movie from the way I was counting. I thought the special effects were allright, they weren't top notch, but they were passable. There were 2 shots that looked particularly bad. Also, I couldn't tell where the practical effects were because they must have been CG altered to the point they just looked like CG. Im not a CG hater though, so that type of thing isn't going to take me out of the story for very long.

 I also re-watched the first half of the thing'82  again, and it changes how you feel about the beginning. Now I feel really sad for the Norwegian at the beginning of Thing'82, i know who he is, as he is filled out now. Now its really easy to hate on this movie, but what I really want to know is how does John Carpenter feel about it. He had said in commentary he felt really bad when the director of The Thing from Another Planet dissed his work, and he also said the problem with filming a movie is you can't enjoy it from the same perspective as the audience. This is a movie I will definitely buy on DVD or Blu Ray. Its funny it seems like its going to have exactly the same fate as the 82 version, poor reviews, poor box office. The Thing however has been known to just grow some legs long after you thought it was dead and continue to keep on existing.

 Now I want to know what happens to Kate in her snowcat, and whats going to happen when she gets to the Russian camp. Also, funny thing John Carpenter had planned on making a sequel, and he was going to use Frostbite as the reason Childs and MacReady looked older. it would be great if that coalesced.

[Halbred]

Paragraphs.

[broodwars]

So I just finished watching the theatrical Winnie the Pooh "movie" that came out this year.  This may be a little surprising since I'm sure I can come off as quite cynical and jaded, but (after Donald Duck and Goofy) Winnie the Pooh is probably my favorite old-time Disney character.  There's just something very comforting and lovable about his original film and the interactions between the various characters.  It's "child-like" without being "childish": it's a kid's movie that didn't talk down to its audience, and so it remains perfectly watchable all these years later.  And the TV series from my recollection was the same way.

This Pooh movie, however, is not in the same league.  Don't get me wrong, as it's certainly not a bad movie and it's very evident that a lot of people who really cared about this property came together to try to make a great Pooh movie in the spirit of the original film.  I just don't think this movie comes together right, as a lot of the simple charm of these characters and their situations is not nearly as prevalent.  In many ways, this almost feels like a toned-down Looney Tunes short, especially since Rabbit seems pretty clearly modeled after Daffy Duck in his mannerisms and expressions.

And there's singing now.  Why Disney felt the need to shoe-horn the cast singing some pretty terrible songs every 5 minutes I'll never understand.  The original movie was fine with the few singing numbers it had, and it just comes off as tacky and forced.  And a 50 minute run time?  Really?  Is that what we're calling "movies" these days, especially when the original Winnie the Pooh movie ran 24 minutes longer without credits?

That said, there is a lot to like about this movie, and it's obvious that Walt Disney Animation was trying so hard to do this right.  For as much grief as I'd give the tone of this movie, there are some pretty clever and well-timed comedic bits.  And there's a lot of fun had with the "storybook" concept of the series in ways that haven't been done before.  They also did an excellent job of making the film look like it was animated in the 1970s, though the occasional 3D models (mostly cel-shaded) thrown in every once in a while are a bit jarring.  The 2D animation is really fantastic as well with respect to the movie's budget.

Overall, the movie's pretty harmless, and it's a good first step for Disney in bringing this franchise back where it should be (rather than the preschool babysitter it's been for a while now).  It doesn't really appeal to me that much, but as a children's movie you can do far worse.  After the generally favorable reception this movie had, I'll be interested to see what the next Pooh movie is like.  And please, Disney....for the love of all that is holy, can we please not make this franchise about cookie-cutter musicals?

[ThePerm]

better halbred?

[ThePerm]

Hanna Awesomesauce/10. Great music too.

[Halbred]

better halbred?

Much better. ;-)

Also, two things: John Carpenter has gone on record as saying that the PS2 game is a sequel, and I wonder if an actual film sequel will be made since Kate's off to a third Russian camp. Who knows, maybe there are TWO survivors of the ship crash?

[Morari]

Never played the PS2 game. Surely it's the same thing as the PC say though? The story made enough sense for the context of a game. Actually, due to it's more militarized approach, it was an almost "Aliens" like sequel. Horror to action. It isn't an upgrade by any means, but is sometimes the best route for a good sequel.

[EasyCure]

Speaking of John Carpenter..

They Live 7/10

Watching it in full (and fully paying attention) for the first time today, I have to say..

With the world the way it is currently, I actually WISH this was the reason behind all of it because it would make me feel a lot better about the situation than I currently do.

_{grumble grumble.. let me stop now before I start ranting about how I'll be losing my job soon because it can lead into current political issues}

Just remember folks; "they live, we sleep" means if we went them to die, we need to wake up.

[ThePerm]

They Live 7.9.10. Fun movie. I always thought it was weird that they cast Roddy Piper. It is obvious that Kurt Russel was meant to play the main character and that he was either unavailable or to expensive for the movie. Still Roddy Piper works out pretty well as a poor mans Kurt Russel. The Message of the Day: Watch out for messages, "they" are brainwashing you!